[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 6793]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 241, THE ACCESS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. KEN CALVERT

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 19, 2016

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to have had the opportunity 
to testify today at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on 
Constitution and Civil Justice Hearing, ``Examining Legislation to 
Promote the Effective Enforcement of the ADA's Public Accommodation 
Provisions.''
  As you know, the Americans with Disabilities Act is undoubtedly one 
of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation. We can all 
agree that providing all Americans with access to public accommodations 
is an invaluable legislative objective.
  The purpose of the ADA is to ensure access for the disabled to public 
accommodation and provide appropriate remedial action for those who 
have suffered harm as a result of noncompliance. Although there are 
times when litigation by harmed individuals is necessary, there are an 
increasing number of lawsuits brought under the ADA that are based upon 
a desire to achieve financial settlements rather than to achieve the 
appropriate modifications for access. These lawsuits filed by serial 
litigants, often referred to as ``drive-by lawsuits,'' place exorbitant 
legal fees on small businesses, and often times business owners are 
unaware of the specific nature of the allegations brought against them.
  In early 2011, frivolous ADA lawsuits against small businesses 
reached an all-time high throughout California, and as a result, my 
good friend and colleague, former Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA), 
championed the issue and introduced the original ACCESS Act (H.R. 3356) 
in the 112th Congress. I was pleased to have been afforded the 
opportunity to take over the legislation for reintroduction beginning 
in the 113th Congress. In January 2015, I reintroduced the legislation 
as H.R. 241, the ACCESS Act (ADA Compliance for Customer Entry to 
Stores and Services).
  H.R. 241 is a cost-free and commonsense piece of legislation that 
would alleviate the financial burden small businesses are facing, while 
still fulfilling the purpose of the ADA. Any person aggrieved by a 
violation of the ADA would provide the owner or operator with a written 
notice of the violation, specific enough to allow such owner or 
operator to identify the barrier to their access. Within 60 days the 
owner or operator would be required to provide the aggrieved person 
with a description outlining improvements that would be made to address 
the barrier. The owner or operator would then have 120 days to make the 
improvement. The failure to meet any of these conditions would allow 
the lawsuit to go forward.
  I think we can all agree that we must ensure that individuals with 
disabilities are afforded the same access and opportunities as those 
without disabilities. Frivolous lawsuits do not accomplish this goal. 
Allowing small business owners and cities alike to fix ADA violations 
within 120 days, rather than waiting for lengthy legal battles to play 
out, is a more thoughtful, timely, and reasonable approach.
  While the ADA is a national law, California has become ground zero 
for ADA violation lawsuits. In fact, California is home to more federal 
disability lawsuits than the next four states combined. A 2014 report 
determined that since 2005, more than 10,000 federal ADA lawsuits had 
been filed in the five states with the highest disabled populations; 
7,188 of which were filed in California. Violating the ADA in 
California carries a minimum $4,000 penalty in addition to the 
plaintiffs legal fees. As of 2014, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 
31 individuals made up at least 56 percent of federal disability 
lawsuits in California. As was mentioned during the second panel of 
today's hearing, California has 12 percent of the nation's disabled 
population, but accounts for over 40 percent of ADA lawsuits. Those 
figures and the real life toll it takes on small business owners, are 
why I introduced this legislation to allow for a ``fix-it'' period.
  However, it is clear that this is not just a major problem in 
California. The introduction, in November 2015, of similar legislation 
by the gentleman from Texas, Representative Ted Poe, shows just that. 
His legislation authorizes a training and education component for the 
affected community and Certified Access Specialists, which I would 
welcome and embrace as an amendment to my bill.
  This is also a bipartisan issue supported by states. I was pleased to 
see that California SB 269 passed unanimously in the State Assembly and 
Senate, and was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on May 10th, 
2016. SB 269 was authored by a friend of mine, Democratic State 
Senator, Gen. Richard Roth. The legislation is similar to the ACCESS 
Act in that it allows businesses to take immediate steps to become 
accessible by providing them with 120 days, from receipt of a Certified 
Access Specialist report, to resolve any identified violations without 
being subject to litigation costs or statutory penalties. I worry that 
with California acting to curb these lawsuits, some of these serial 
litigants will try their trade in other states.
  Without question, the ACCESS Act will ensure that the ADA is used for 
its true purpose of guaranteed accessibility to public accommodations 
for all Americans while eliminating abusive, costly and unnecessary 
lawsuits for small business owners.
  It is more important than ever that the House of Representatives act 
to move this vital piece of legislation.

                          ____________________